On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:06:27PM -0400, Brian Hurt wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2006, Jon Harrop wrote:
>
> >Agreed. Should OCaml's successor have extensible arrays with 64-bit lengths
> >and strings as char arrays?
>
> Why not just run Ocaml as a 64-bit app on a 64-bit OS?
>
> We I designing a language today, I'd have 63-bit array lengths- of course,
> I'd do it by not bothering to support 32-bit systems...
>
> As for strings, I'd be inclined to make them immutable- the correct way to
> manipulate strings is with regular expressions. But I'm widely
> acknowledged to be an extremist.
IMHO strings should be possibly made immutable by using the "immutable"
keyword, which is the opposite of the "mutable" keyword as it is used for
records. So the user/programmer can chose the kind of strings he7she wants.
Ciao,
Oliver